Journalism and cycling

voluntary

Painted lanes for cyclists are a joke, but still better than nothing. At least motorists see a line which they can aim not to cross. To make it right, there should be a cycle lane followed by 1.5 metre wide NO TRAFFIC lane and just then motorist lane. There should always be a 1.5 meter between the cyclist and motorists.

meeeeh

voluntary wrote: »

You wouldn't as you'd end up paying 100 euro fine.

It's very easy to root out certain behaviors if there is a will. Considering te only deaths not really going down are pedestrian it might be something that should be looked into.

I disagree about white lines. I think they are useless on narrow roads in urban areas but they are great on wider faster national roads. Where I live there will be never a segregated cycle track on 100kmph road because there aren't enough people using it (rural area) but I find it great. There is an odd moron who treats it as a sit down area and every so often tractor will pull on it to let someone pass but vast majority of time there are no issues. It allows me to cycle with kids there. We would not use that road without the white line and we never feel unsafe on it.

What Username Guidelines

voluntary wrote: »

Painted lanes for cyclists are a joke, but still better than nothing.

Nothing might actually be better tbh, drivers assume that once their wheels are the other side of the line then they're ok, without taking into account where in the lane the cyclist is.

voluntary

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Nothing might actually be better tbh, drivers assume that once their wheels are the other side of the line then they're ok, without taking into account where in the lane the cyclist is.

That's true. But at least you can be relatively safe while keeping to the left edge of the cycle lane. I'm not saying these lanes are good enough, just a better than nothing.

I find some painted laned quite ridiculous thougt and would never use them. Such like ones painted between two motorist lanes so you're surrounded from left and right! Mad stuff.

eeeee

White lines painted are the only cycle infrastructure I am a fan of.
They alert drivers to the presence of cyclists on the road, providing a physical reminder that cyclists exist on the roads with drivers. They're frequently ignored in my experience, but they're the only bit of cycling infrastructure I use. I'm not a fan of segregation, ymmv.

Tenzor07

What Username Guidelines wrote: »

Nothing might actually be better tbh, drivers assume that once their wheels are the other side of the line then they're ok, without taking into account where in the lane the cyclist is.

Exactly, the painted lanes are literally a waste of paint...

A lot of drivers seem to think that the white cycle line paint indicates that they can drive right beside it, despite most of the paint being a handlebar length in width....

I've witnessed many drivers who drive right beside the line, despite having plenty of room on their side of the road...

Tenzor07

voluntary wrote: »

That's true. But at least you can be relatively safe while keeping to the left edge of the cycle lane..

The left edge is the part of the road where drainage exists, and is usually full of dirt, glass, water and where the tarmac is joined to the side of the road, as well as drainage covers too... So not safe at all..

Martin567

JMcL wrote: »

Well, a good start would be application of the existing laws and the changing of perception of driving as a right - mandatory retests for scoring douze points or for particular classes of offense, and utterly throwing the book no excuses accepted at anybody that reoffends while banned. Netherlands style automatic balance of culpability for the meatbag in charge of the big metal killy thing would also be good. Oh, and actual introduction of the 1.5m rule rather than "Ah no, sure that's a bit hard to police" - I think CPs have gotten worse in the intervening months since Ross copped out with plenty of media coverage that it wasn't going to be law.

Difficult to think of a worse or more stupid idea. Bad cyclist behaviour is excused by some on here on the basis that the only person they are endangering is themselves. Apparently it shouldn't be discussed at all according to certain posters.

Yet you would propose automatically blaming the motorist even though the cyclist could be entirely to blame for a particular incident.

magicbastarder

One of the most popular talking points is that presumed liability automatically finds the drivers to be at fault, which makes it easy to oppose. Again, this is simply a misinterpretation: Presumed liability only switches the burden of proof – it does not establish fault.

Another common argument is that presumed liability contradicts the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ clause, which is the backbone of criminal law. However, as even the Maltese papers will admit: “this is a law of civil liability and not a question of guilt.”

https://www.bikecitizens.net/presumed-liability-shrinks-cycling-levels/

magicbastarder

and another opinion on the limitations of 'strict liability'.

It is a myth that is really only believed outside the Netherlands: “Because there is strict liability in the Netherlands, drivers are more cautious around cyclists, and that leads to more cycling” some even take this a step further adding “and because ‘we’ don’t have strict liability, we’ll never have such levels of cycling.”

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/

Tenzor07

I think this is also depressingly familiar here in Dublin as in London:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/jun/17/the-depressing-lesson-of-west-londons-lost-cycle-route

people who insist they simply love cycling, but have a unique, unfixable problem with one particular bike lane, namely the one in their city or neighbourhood. See also: “I’m a cyclist”; “I own a bicycle”.

One of the most depressing elements of events in west London has been the spread of the myth that protected bike lanes cause more pollution

A more easily-comprehensible objection was the fate of up to two dozen trees of various sizes that would have been felled to make way for bike routes. It’s worth remembering that trees can be replanted, and also that the route could have been adjusted to save the trees – instead of taking more space from cars.

Martin567

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://www.bikecitizens.net/presumed-liability-shrinks-cycling-levels/

Thanks for that. Interesting reading.

This caught my eye though:

"In the Netherlands, unsurprisingly, the law is particularly unforgiving towards the driver. If the victim is over 14, the motorist is 50% strictly liable (regardless of fault), and is presumed liable for the other 50%. And if a victim is less that 14 years old, then only strict liability is applied, i.e. the driver will have to compensate the victim regardless of fault!"

The above is so disgraceful it beggars belief that it could constitute a law. The motorist is automatically penalised simply for existing. I could be the safest driver in the world but if a cyclist cycles into my car and gets injured I will be 50% responsible for over 14 year olds and 100% responsible for under 14 year olds. Amazing that anyone could try to justify that.

Tenzor07

Martin567 wrote: »

Thanks for that. Interesting reading.
This caught my eye though:
"In the Netherlands, unsurprisingly, the law is particularly unforgiving towards the driver. If the victim is over 14, the motorist is 50% strictly liable (regardless of fault), and is presumed liable for the other 50%. And if a victim is less that 14 years old, then only strict liability is applied, i.e. the driver will have to compensate the victim regardless of fault!"
The above is so disgraceful it beggars belief that it could constitute a law. The motorist is automatically penalised simply for existing. I could be the safest driver in the world but if a cyclist cycles into my car and gets injured I will be 50% responsible for over 14 year olds and 100% responsible for under 14 year olds. Amazing that anyone could try to justify that.

You need to keep reading so, If you’re a motorist then you have an insurer in your corner fighting your cause, but as a cyclist you have to seek out a lawyer, and you bear all the risk in terms of legal expenses if you don’t win your case.
Cyclists and pedestrians are vulnerable on the roads, and what happens in the Netherlands is that we should look at who brings the greatest potential for harm in a collision and shift the burden of proof from the vulnerable onto the powerful.

magicbastarder

don't forget that only relates to insurance payouts (according to the second link i posted).
i.e. it means damage to a 13 year old is covered by the motorist's insurance; the article does not mention further effects on the driver's insurance (and i guess it's quite possible that there's no NCB implications if the driver is found not to be at fault).

Mickiemcfist

On initial reading it seems bad, but it's a mental & cultural switch that needs to happen to be honest. (I say this as a more regular driver than I am a cyclist)

Imagine how much more due care & attention drivers would take if they knew they'd be personally liable for the death of a cyclist, no matter how it occurred. You'd drive slower, give more room & be constantly on the lookout for cyclists.

Now ask yourself as a human being - why it takes the threat of financial repercussions for you to treat other human beings with more care.

Martin567

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

On initial reading it seems bad, but it's a mental & cultural switch that needs to happen to be honest. (I say this as a more regular driver than I am a cyclist)

Imagine how much more due care & attention drivers would take if they knew they'd be personally liable for the death of a cyclist, no matter how it occurred. You'd drive slower, give more room & be constantly on the lookout for cyclists.

Now ask yourself as a human being - why it takes the threat of financial repercussions for you to treat other human beings with more care.

I drive with due care and attention as it is. Are you really suggesting that I should still be personally liable for a cyclist's death irrespective of circumstances? Because there are circumstances where the cyclist could be 100% to blame. A minority but it can happen.

Fian

Martin567 wrote: »

The above is so disgraceful it beggars belief that it could constitute a law. The motorist is automatically penalised simply for existing. I could be the safest driver in the world but if a cyclist cycles into my car and gets injured I will be 50% responsible for over 14 year olds and 100% responsible for under 14 year olds. Amazing that anyone could try to justify that.

Automatically penalised for driving a two ton piece of machinery and colliding with a vulnerable road user. Basically if you choose to drive you take on that risk.

Mickiemcfist

Martin567 wrote: »

I drive with due care and attention as it is. Are you really suggesting that I should still be personally liable for a cyclist's death irrespective of circumstances? Because there are circumstances where the cyclist could be 100% to blame. A minority but it can happen.

Trust me you are definitely the exception. I think if you're (or I) in control of a 2 tonne piece of metal hurtling down the road you should be exceptionally aware of the damage it can do & be able to stop it in a very short space of time relative to the dangers around you. I.e. on a motorway or dual carriage way - do whatever speed you feel you can, but when there's a bike, kid, potential for a football to roll across the road - cars should be going a hell of a lot slower. Wind can blow bikes off course etc.

You being culpable gives no financial benefit to a dead cyclist - it's just the only way to make *most drivers think.

Tenzor07

Martin567 wrote: »

I drive with due care and attention as it is. Are you really suggesting that I should still be personally liable for a cyclist's death irrespective of circumstances? Because there are circumstances where the cyclist could be 100% to blame. A minority but it can happen.

In Dutch law if you are driving your motor vehicle and strike a cyclist under 14 then a claim can be made against your insurance for 100% of damages even if the child was guilty of contributory negligence in causing the accident. However in the case of intent or wilful and conscious recklessness of a young cyclist of pedestrian the 100% rule does not apply...


I suggest Google is your friend, and search out all the elements of the law.

tomasrojo

Martin567 wrote: »

I drive with due care and attention as it is. Are you really suggesting that I should still be personally liable for a cyclist's death irrespective of circumstances? Because there are circumstances where the cyclist could be 100% to blame. A minority but it can happen.

That isn't how the Dutch system works, as I understand it. It just means that the driver is *assumed* to be at fault, rather than assumed not to be at fault. Then the driver gives evidence or testimony to show they're not at fault, instead of the pedestrian or cyclist having to show the driver is at fault. So it's not irrespective of circumstances. The circumstances are key to whether the driver is at fault or not. It's just that the cyclist or pedestrian -- who sometimes is very traumatised, confused or indeed unconscious -- doesn't have to reconstruct the scene.

12 element

Noel Gibbons at it again:
Mayo cyclists saddled with number plates

magicbastarder

Martin567 wrote: »

I drive with due care and attention as it is. Are you really suggesting that I should still be personally liable for a cyclist's death irrespective of circumstances? Because there are circumstances where the cyclist could be 100% to blame. A minority but it can happen.

again, the dutch system is used to determine burden of proof for insurance purposes only.
it does not have any bearing on legal responsibility (i.e. it does not determine that you could be found criminally responsible, for example).

Duckjob

Martin567 wrote: »

Difficult to think of a worse or more stupid idea. Bad cyclist behaviour is excused by some on here on the basis that the only person they are endangering is themselves. Apparently it shouldn't be discussed at all according to certain posters.

Once again, I didn't and don't excuse bad cyclist behavior, anymore than I excuse bad behavior from any road user.

Pointing out that one causes some order of magnitude greater damage, injury and death than than other does not equate to excusing anyone from wrongdoing.

The problem I have is with the false equivalence which gets trotted out again and again and again on every one of these conversations, and which distracts from getting down to the specifics of the case being discussed and how to improve safety in the future.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum on this forum, the only thing I have in common with that cyclist that you saw going through a red light today is that we both, on occasion use a bike. Other than that, I dont know that person from Adam, so it makes no sense to bring his or her behavior into a conversation when I've been in an accident.

Indeed, the OP that kicked off this very thread nearly 3 years ago posted an article on the tragic death of Donna Fox, which, instead of sticking to discussing the known facts about what happened, veered off into a completely irrelevant moan about what "some cyclists" do. Did Donna know these people ? No.

It would be nice just for once if we could have a mature discussion that was just about
a) what happened ?
b) who was at fault ?
c) what measures could be taken to ensure the person at fault becomes safer in the future.


Sadly, at the moment, a section of our population seems pathologically incapable of joining and contributing positively to these sorts of mature discussions because of irrational anger against people on bikes. Even worse, people in the media seem to feel they need to pander to these people by including whataboutery in their publishings, all in the name of "balance".

Hurrache

12 element wrote: »

Noel Gibbons at it again:
Mayo cyclists saddled with number plates

Wait, wtf. So his solution is a small thing hanging under the saddle

will hang under the bicycle saddle in a bid to increase the chances of other road users seeing the cyclist

Jesus, it road users can't see a cyclist without such a piece of plastic then we're in big trouble.

Tenzor07

Hurrache wrote: »

Wait, wtf. So his solution is a small thing hanging under the saddle
Jesus, it road users can't see a cyclist without such a piece of plastic then we're in big trouble.

It seems to be that it's a novelty exercise to raise awareness, rather than an attempt to suggest that all bicycles should have one?

Hurrache

Yeah, I get it's a novelty, but the additional safety features he says it brings are a stretch.

tomasrojo

It's also (yet another) way of reinforcing the notion that cyclists are inherently hard to see. They're not especially hard to see in time when general visibility is good and if you're not driving at an inappropriate speed, and a lack of contrast with their surroundings isn't actually the reason drivers generally hit them.

fryup

*there's a discussion about cycle reg plates on newstalk now

magicbastarder

oh, quelle f***ing surprise.

rubadub

Pretty sure the non mandatory reg plate thing was already done in Ireland before (might have been the UK). Can't find it now but it was a year or so ago and in schools.

Found it, I think, dated 2010 amd was Noel Gibbons, maybe that is what the poster meant about "at it again"

http://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/bicycles-to-get-number-plates-1039/

Bicycles to get number plates
21.47 | 16 June 2010
Bicycles will be fitted with number plates in a novel programme aimed at raising awareness of cycle safety.

The scheme has been launched in County Mayo (Ireland) where more than 1,000 schoolchildren will be issued with number plates for their bikes.

Noel Gibbons, road safety officer with Mayo County Council, hopes the number plates scheme will help raise awareness of cycle safety.

He says: “The purpose of the number plates is to raise awareness around cycle safety and encourage more people to take to the two wheel mode of transport rather than the four wheels.

“The number plates are made from a reflective material and hang under the bicycle saddle, increasing the chances of other road users to see the cyclist.

“The plates can be personalised to show the name of the cyclist, making them a great novelty gift for children.”

For more information contact Noel Gibbons on 0877870055 or 0949047115.